Brexit discussion thread IV

Enzokk

Bit cynical wrote: »

The problem is that the document is inconsistant as it stands regardless of what the UK do. If the UK offer regulatory alignment which would allow for a soft border with freedom of movement of people under the CTA, the EU would object as it doesn't allow for full freedom of movement for all of the EU. Therefore no deal. Therefore hard border for Ireland etc.

The document I believe only talks about regulatory alignment between NI and Ireland to ensure no border on the island. What happens between the UK and NI is really nothing to do with the EU. So if there is regulatory alignment that allows free movement of goods and labour between the EU and Northern Ireland there would be no question the EU getting upset as there would be no restrictions on EU citizens to work in NI. It would be up to the UK to decide if they maintain that alignment between NI and the rest of the UK. They cannot keep alignment and open borders between Belfast and Liverpool but check people and goods. Right?

Folkstonian

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

J Mysterio wrote: »

He just can't seize the moment, events are bigger than him.

He's not seizing this moment because the Tories are currently punching themselves and each other in the face. Why stop them?

As for Brexit, it is well known that Corbyn is not a fan of the EU. He is quite happy to let the Tories bumble into a no deal crashout, since that will destroy the Tories for a generation and leave Labour in Government by default.

The conservatives are brawling it out amongst themselves right now, but they might not be doing so forever.

I think there is a general consensus that the tories haven’t been so directionless and leaderless at any time since the end of the war.

If Corbyn had the abilities as a politician and a leader to take advantage of the current fiasco, there is absolutely no logical or plausible reason why he wouldn’t be on the offensive right here and now, speaking out against May and Brexit etc every single day, relentlessly demanding a general election.

Instead, he’s more apparently concerned with Palestine, Venezuela, Zionism, and meeting and greeting some very ‘questionable’ characters from the Middle East at any given opportunity.

He is taking his party so far to the left that it is categorically unelectable, and seemingly anything else that would make a material difference to the lives of the hard working, financially stretched middle classes is being totally ignored, as if it is unimportant and inconsequential for a labour leader to involve himself with that sort of voter. Well, it’s not Jeremy. These are and always have been the people that win and lose GEs for both parties

He’s not a leader, he’s not a PM in waiting, he’s a useless, ineffective, uninspiring, inarticulate old bore, but he’s not going anywhere any time soon because the one thing he’s managed to do well is surround himself with a bunch of very left wing people who have done an extremely effective job of putting their own people in positions of real influence and power within the party.

The time is now for labour, or more realistically, the time was now. Like I said earlier, the tories won’t be at their worst for ever. The centre left are nowhere and labour have skied one over the bar with the net gaping!

trellheim

Corbyn appears to go into PMQ and ask questions about anything other than Brexit

Much of this is a misunderstanding. He is doing this because it works for them - hard Labour.

Corbyn campaigned for Remain - not enthusiastically I grant you but nevertheless.

A GE now - with the political climate as is - wont change anything as no-one has a compelling vision of something else.

As I said above unless TM can get Steve Baker and the hardliners onside ( and they are not, for Chequers) then the war will continue, and a "war continues" status quo means Hard Brexit. I can not see a way out here with DD outside the tent.

So - what of BoJo then. Suspect fomenting a rebellion and a 1922 committee finding magically that they have 48 letters. It won't be hard to find a Brutus , and suspect a casus belli will come along soon enough. Then BoJo rides in, new PM, soft Unity Brexit as a ruletaker "for a few years" [ or Unity "All Out" ! ]

ancapailldorcha

Enzokk wrote: »

This whole affair hasn't shown the politicians in a great light. The DUP should be aware that the biggest threat regarding a united Ireland was a change in circumstances for the people of NI and a change for the people of Ireland. With both countries in the EU their circumstances economically would be relatively the same. Its not like Ireland has any resources that the UK doesn't have so its not like we could improve our situation with natural gas or oil over the UK. So keeping the status quo would have meant NI as part of the UK for as long as both remained in the EU. Instead someone or more than one person had the idea that if the UK leaves the EU and does better they will rid the question for all time. The stupidity is not knowing why the UK was doing well economically and throwing all their eggs in a basket that will break.

Then we have the Conservatives, who has been fighting against their greatest leaders decision for so long. Let's not forget it was Margaret Thatcher that was in charge of the UK when the integration of the EU really started and if you read her statements on the EU she would have been aghast at the likes of Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg. Yet they probably hold her in the highest esteem and would worship at her feet if they could. So you had a party who led the way in to an integrated EU fighting to leave it. Then you had a leader who also gambled on a question he thought would settle the dispute forever. This is the same as the DUP and both lost. David Cameron should have triggered article 50 the day after the vote. He should have appointed Boris Johnson and Michael Gove as the head of leaving the EU and let them at the EU. It would have worked out no worse than we have now and maybe he would have had the balls to call them on their lies when it came out that they couldn't promise the people £350m per week for the NHS and either called for a new vote or cancelled Brexit. But he ran like the coward he is.

Now we have Labour. They have the leader I think the party needs right now. Yes his polling may be bad, but lets be honest even if they had a more moderate leader the press would savage whoever is head of the Labour party. At least Corbyn is able to mobilize the base of the party and get more younger voters involved. The biggest problem for Labour is that he has a blind spot about the EU as well. If they would get behind reversing this decision they would actually start leading the polls I believe and that momentum would make them unstoppable. But he sees Brexit as a way of implementing his policies without the restrictions the EU would place on them so he would gladly let his voters suffer economically to follow his own path.

So there we have 3 parties that are at the moment not thinking about the people but only about themselves. And this is why Brexit is a disaster. You have to look at admiration at the SNP and Sinn Féin and how they are handling this. The SNP almost threw it away as well with all their talks about a 2nd referendum for independence. It was not what people wanted when nothing had changed at that time. They have let Brexit play its course and the worse it becomes the easier it will be for them. You have their opposition in Scotland who is from the party that is leading the country to hardship. And while the Scottish Conservatives are for staying in the EU, their votes are helping Theresa May get Brexit through The Commons. How do you as a leader explain that? I am for staying in the EU, but my fellow party members just voted against my stance? Good luck selling that to the voters that voted against leaving the EU.

We really are in an age of stupidity, where we have these clowns running Brexit.

Excellent post.

On the first point, the DUP has the benefit of being able to appeal to a high power (Westminster) in the event of a crisis. Westminster does not have this luxury. It seems to me that the DUP has prioritised the erection of a border and the separation of Northern Ireland from the south above the well-being of Northern Ireland's citizens and residents. As an aside, having to impose border controls will mean more jobs paid for by Westminster. Finally, if all goes south then there is the tried and tested tactic of using thinly veiled threats of violence to get a bigger handout from Westminster.

Regarding the Conservatives, David Cameron is the political equivalent of a lazy university student who skims passes in exams by doing a few hours of quick revision the night before. He got away with it a few times (Indyref 2014 and the 2015 GE) so he kept doing it until it was revealed as a tactic of monumental stupidity. Previous crises in the UK such as the winter of discontent and the two world wars were not of the UK's making and yet the Conservative party presented great leaders who navigated through both. It is now so fractious and weak that it can not to do this time. After all, it did create this problem by itself alone.

And then there's Jeremy Corbyn. I don't know if any other political party leader has ever been welcomed to speak at Glastonbury but the fact that Corbyn is neglecting the pro-EU beliefs of most young people risks missing a crucial opportunity to build a solid Labour voter base for the next generation while the Tory voter base literally dies off. He could not ask for a better set of circumstances to rebuild his party for the Northern and Welsh voters and yet is happy to maintain his constructively ambiguous position so he can begin his project Socialism that voters don't want.

CelticRambler

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, we've just seen that a 52/48 vote doesn't settle a question decisively.

And, in the present circumstances, I seriously doubt that even a 55/45 vote the other way would settle it either.

As we know now, that "52/48" hides the reality of what people thought they were voting for. 48% voted to maintain the status quo, whereas a some of the 52% voted for a clean-break-no-SM-no-CU Brexit, some voted for a whites-only-Britain Brexit, some voted for an anti-austerity Brexit, some voted for give-the-Krauts-a-good-kicking Brexit, many voted for the big-red-bus Brexit. In effect, the vast majority of the 52% voted for a not-what-the-other-Brexit-voter-voted-for Brexit, which is hardly a mandate for overturning the status quo.


Would a second referendum change anything? Probably not, given the bipolar nature of British politics, and the British electorate's apparent discomfort with proportional represenation. On top of that, we've seen that the media in the UK has no interest in challenging either side (but especially the Brexiteers) to defend their proclamations with substantiated arguments.



So even though I think that democracy (and the economic interest of the UK) would be best served by holding a second referendum to validate or overturn the result of the first, I don't think it would be run on that basis, nor would the ballot-paper choice(s) allow for a sufficiently unequivocal result.

J Mysterio

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

He's not seizing this moment because the Tories are currently punching themselves and each other in the face. Why stop them?

As for Brexit, it is well known that Corbyn is not a fan of the EU. He is quite happy to let the Tories bumble into a no deal crashout, since that will destroy the Tories for a generation and leave Labour in Government by default.

I accept your points and you may have something here, but if this is indeed the case, then Corbyn is even worse than I had postulated (ineffectual ditherer). In your scenario he is a sneaky liar who is purposefully misrepresenting his position in the hope of building something from the ashes.

But to do that, Britain has to burn to the grpund and so he is letting down what should be his core support, the average working class/ lower middle class/ industrial voter - it is they will suffer the most from Brexit. The Labour heartlands will be devastated.

Zubeneschamali

Folkstonian wrote: »

there is absolutely no logical or plausible reason why he wouldn’t be on the offensive right here and now, speaking out against May and Brexit etc every single day, relentlessly demanding a general election.

Again, you are assuming he is against Brexit.

If he is in fact in favour of Brexit, then letting the Tories own it, mess it up and take the blame is a canny move.

Zubeneschamali

J Mysterio wrote: »

In your scenario he is a sneaky liar who is purposefully misrepresenting his position in the hope of building something from the ashes.

Where is the lie?

He says Labour will respect the Referendum result - so Labour would also brexit. He said this out loud, even.

Since the Tories are going to:

a) deliver Brexit and
b) get blamed for it

why would he stop them? For Corbyn, the Moment to Seize is the General election after Brexit happens, when he can say Brexit, yes, but not this disastrous Tory Brexit.

kunst nugget

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Again, you are assuming he is against Brexit.

If he is in fact in favour of Brexit, then letting the Tories own it, mess it up and take the blame is a canny move.

He's totally for Brexit, he's a Bennite through and through.

kunst nugget

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

why would he stop them? For Corbyn, the Moment to Seize is the General election after Brexit happens, when he can say Brexit, yes, but not this disastrous Tory Brexit.

And then put in costly socialist policies when the Treasury haven't got a pot to piss in after the financial fallout of a crash out Brexit. How long would it take the UK to recover from that?

J Mysterio

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Where is the lie?

He says Labour will respect the Referendum result - so Labour would also brexit. He said this out loud, even.

Since the Tories are going to:

a) deliver Brexit and
b) get blamed for it

why would he stop them? For Corbyn, the Moment to Seize is the General election after Brexit happens, when he can say Brexit, yes, but not this disastrous Tory Brexit.

Ok, there is no lie, but there are unsaid, ulterior motives which are tantamount to lying. He has a nefarious scheme, and he is willing to see the country be destroyed in order to enact it. So not a 'liar', but a nefarious, cretinous character.

Zubeneschamali

kunst nugget wrote: »

How long would it take the UK to recover from that?

Rees-Mogg's 50 years sounds reasonable.

Zubeneschamali

J Mysterio wrote: »

he is willing to see the country be destroyed in order to enact it.

That is, of course, not how he sees it. He thinks the EU is a pro-capitalist pro-business club, and that he can lead a more socialist UK which is better for his voters outside the EU.

If big business, the banks, the 1% and so on take a hit, well, they don't vote Labour anyhow.

Enzokk

CelticRambler wrote: »

As we know now, that "52/48" hides the reality of what people thought they were voting for. 48% voted to maintain the status quo, whereas a some of the 52% voted for a clean-break-no-SM-no-CU Brexit, some voted for a whites-only-Britain Brexit, some voted for an anti-austerity Brexit, some voted for give-the-Krauts-a-good-kicking Brexit, many voted for the big-red-bus Brexit. In effect, the vast majority of the 52% voted for a not-what-the-other-Brexit-voter-voted-for Brexit, which is hardly a mandate for overturning the status quo.


Would a second referendum change anything? Probably not, given the bipolar nature of British politics, and the British electorate's apparent discomfort with proportional represenation. On top of that, we've seen that the media in the UK has no interest in challenging either side (but especially the Brexiteers) to defend their proclamations with substantiated arguments.



So even though I think that democracy (and the economic interest of the UK) would be best served by holding a second referendum to validate or overturn the result of the first, I don't think it would be run on that basis, nor would the ballot-paper choice(s) allow for a sufficiently unequivocal result.

I think a 50.01%-49.99% result can be decisive. The problem with Brexit is not the margin but the argument put forth. Had people voted to leave the EU warts and all with the consequences known there would be no argument about a second referendum. The fact that the people had a few different versions of Brexit they voted for and they were not told about the negatives means there is discontent about the result. Its not the margin but the way the referendum was run that has caused the problems.

If there is a new referendum with a choice of staying in the EU or leaving it all together, with no medicines agency, no access to EASA, no EURATOM access so no radiation treatment and people still vote for it, then you implement it.

kunst nugget

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That is, of course, not how he sees it. He thinks the EU is a pro-capitalist pro-business club, and that he can lead a more socialist UK which is better for his voters outside the EU.

If big business, the banks, the 1% and so on take a hit, well, they don't vote Labour anyhow.

If the rich take too much of a hit, they don't hang around. Look at what happened in the Seventies when the top rate of tax in the UK for the rich was 83%. They left in droves.

Zubeneschamali

kunst nugget wrote: »

If the rich take too much of a hit, they don't hang around. Look at what happened in the Seventies when the top rate of tax in the UK for the rich was 83%. They left in droves.

Yes, taking their Tory votes and Tory funding with them.

kunst nugget

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, taking their Tory votes and Tory funding with them.

You seriously think that would be the only consequence of that? That seems unbelievably naive.

J Mysterio

Tory infighting reaching ridiculous heights. Yesterday Davis confirms he will vote against Chequers and criticises May. Today, Boris writes in the Daily Telegraph:

"The fix is in. The whole thing is about as pre-ordained as a bout between Giant Haystacks and Big Daddy; and in this case, I am afraid, the inevitable outcome is victory for the EU, with the UK lying flat on the canvas with 12 stars circling symbolically over our semi-conscious heads".

No. 10 Spokesman responds:

“Boris Johnson resigned over Chequers, there’s no new ideas in this article to respond to. “What we need at this time is serious leadership, with a serious plan. That’s exactly what the country has with this prime minister and this Brexit plan.” “What the prime minister has said very clearly is that we have now made our move and it is for the European Union to make its move.”

They still think Chequers is a credible proposal apparently.

Anthracite

kunst nugget wrote: »

And then put in costly socialist policies when the Treasury haven't got a pot to piss in after the financial fallout of a crash out Brexit. How long would it take the UK to recover from that?

There really would be so many tiers of irony at work if, little over a hundred years after independence, what used to be the most neglected and impoverished part of the UK, populated by people much more stupid than the English (according to the English) was a successful and healthy country and economy, while the rest of the UK, dragged into the mire by English nationalism, descended into economic ruin, depopulation, and extremist politics. A bit like what they did to us, only without the famine. And the fact that they are doing it to themselves.

What's Irish for schadenfreude?

Anthracite

“What the prime minister has said very clearly is that we have now made our move and it is for the European Union to make its move.”

I love how her PR people even work this phrase into quoted copy. They had hours to think of something that sounded good, and this is what they managed.

Zubeneschamali

kunst nugget wrote: »

You seriously think that would be the only consequence of that? That seems unbelievably naive.

I have no doubt that the UK will be poorer as a whole.

But I also think that we will see the end of Tory rule for a generation.

swampgas

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

So where are the Lib Dems in all of this. Seems like perfect opportunity to take centre voters from Tories and Labour

Destroyed by their previous stint as a junior coalition partner with the Conservatives. And FPTP means they have little chance of getting back any time soon.

Leroy42

swampgas wrote: »

Destroyed by their previous stint as a junior coalition partner with the Conservatives. And FPTP means they have little chance of getting back any time soon.

And being totally ineffectual. They can't keep hiding behind the previous coalition excuse. Sure they took a beating, but should have had plenty of time to make serious inroads.

Brexit really should have been their opportunity to fast track back into the mainstream.

But when they can't even be bothered to turn up for votes in the commons, well really what is the point?

CelticRambler

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

So where are the Lib Dems in all of this. Seems like perfect opportunity to take centre voters from Tories and Labour

This is as much a commentary on the attitude of the British electorate as anything else: they don't care, they're just not engaged in meaningful government. Threads on boards.ie regularly include posts referring to the tribal allegiances in NI, but it's really no better in England - you're either Blue or Red; anything else means you're a weirdo who probably shouldn't be allowed to vote.


Here in France, despite much shouting and arm-waving and Gallic shrugging, we're still living the Macron dream after decades of "them and us" stagnation, and beginning to see the fruits of his efforts. Two years ago, I wondered if Brexit would finally see a "third way", middle-ground, national consensus party out of the UK's political quagmire. But no - there isn't even a hint of anyone organising meaningful opposition to the Westminster pantomime.

Rjd2

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

So where are the Lib Dems in all of this. Seems like perfect opportunity to take centre voters from Tories and Labour

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2018/07/what-point-lib-dems-if-their-leaders-won-t-turn-vote-against-brexit

Completely ****ing useless.

There is room for a center party in the UK, but they have burned to many bridges with the left and at times there smugness annoys plenty on the right also.

I think for any chance of survival they need a Macron figure, but lets be honest Cable is so far from that its unreal. Looking at the other MPS either, I don't see who would make a big difference. Jo Swinson seems liked, but from what I seen of her she is pretty average also.

There is room for a new party in the country, but if if it doesn't happen soon they it will never happen.

Bit cynical

Enzokk wrote: »

The document I believe only talks about regulatory alignment between NI and Ireland to ensure no border on the island. What happens between the UK and NI is really nothing to do with the EU. So if there is regulatory alignment that allows free movement of goods and labour between the EU and Northern Ireland there would be no question the EU getting upset as there would be no restrictions on EU citizens to work in NI. It would be up to the UK to decide if they maintain that alignment between NI and the rest of the UK. They cannot keep alignment and open borders between Belfast and Liverpool but check people and goods. Right?

That is what is commonly believed but, as I have quoted alreead, the document also says:

In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.

So it must be regulatory alignment across the whole UK. But, as I have said, this means objection from the EU.

Rjd2

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

A new poll tomorrow shows a surge in support for a United Ireland if Brexit goes ahead.

52% would vote for a UI while 39% would vote to remain part of the UK.

Add another few points if a hard border.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-union-scotland-northern-ireland-nationalists-a8519526.html

Do you have a break down of this poll? Its commissioned by our Future Our Choice and Best For Britain who are campaigning to over turn Brexit who couldn't possibly be biased.:o

Water John

Who conducted the poll, ie the polling co and the questions asked are important. If it's a reputable polling co, then they will have done a correct sample and their questions will be unbiased. Who commissioned the poll then would not be revelent.

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

That is what is commonly believed but, as I have quoted alreead, the document also says:

In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.

So it must be regulatory alignment across the whole UK. But, as I have said, this means objection from the EU.

Nope. Setting aside the fact that that sentence was added at the insistence of the DUP, what the UK does within its own jurisdiction is its own business. So if GB wants to give unfettered access to NI, they can. They're the ones saying that magical solutions will make for frictionless trade, so it's no big deal.


The UK can allow NI businesses to sell into GB without any controls, and NI can purchase from GB anything that complies with EU standards, i.e. the same as it has now.

Enzokk

Bit cynical wrote: »

That is what is commonly believed but, as I have quoted alreead, the document also says:

In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.

So it must be regulatory alignment across the whole UK. But, as I have said, this means objection from the EU.

It's almost like this whole thing is a mess, right? The UK cannot somehow keep to its international agreements and leave the EU. The line you quote is also for the UK to sort out. It has nothing to do with the EU, other than there will be regulatory alignment between NI and Ireland. If the UK wants to keep to the line in the document they have to negotiate that with the EU. If this cannot be done then there will be no deal.